social media – Hellbound and Down

More than 60,000 arrested in ‘chilling curb of free speech’ as damning report exposes zealous policing of social media as ‘Orwellian mess’

A major free speech row erupted last night after it was revealed that more than 60,000 people have been arrested over the past five years for ‘communications offences’ – some as trivial as viewing disparaging TikTok videos.

The astonishing figure has been described as ‘Orwellian’, and having a ‘chilling effect’ in stifling opinions online.

The statistics – to be published in a hard-hitting report this week – also highlight the chaotic implementation of rules on ‘malicious’ messaging, with some police forces making 14 times more arrests under the powers than others.

The report, by campaign group Big Brother Watch, discloses that at least 62,199 people in the UK have been arrested for such offences over the past half-decade, with 18,510 being charged and 12,292 convicted.

Campaigners say that although a proportion of the arrests will be justifiable – such as intervention to stop threatening messages from abusive partners in domestic violence cases – the scope of the laws has spawned a rash of over-zealous policing of everyday communications.

The report cites the case of West Midlands Police visiting the home of a vulnerable teenage girl to accuse her over a TikTok post containing a teacher’s image with negative comments.

They demanded that the girl hand over all her devices and either attend a voluntary interview or face arrest – even though she had not created, shared or commented on the video.

The investigation later concluded with the child formally told that no further action was taken. The force defended their actions on the grounds that they were ‘investigating alleged malicious communications offences’.

Writing in today’s Mail On Sunday, Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union, said: ‘Why are the authorities spending so much time policing our tweets when they could be policing our streets?

‘Shoplifting, mobile phone theft and sexual offences are all on the rise, yet the police seem increasingly obsessed with catching thought criminals.

‘The sheer number of people being arrested for online offences, even though only one in five end up being convicted, cannot help but have a chilling effect on free speech.

‘People up and down the country daren’t say what they think about a whole range of issues for fear they’ll get a knock on their door at four in the morning by a couple of plainclothes officers wearing rainbow lanyards.’

Last year, a Hertfordshire couple were arrested after they made complaints about their daughter’s primary school on a WhatsApp group chat.

Rosalind Levine and Maxie Allen were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment and malicious communications.

They later received £20,000 in damages following a public outcry.

Keep reading

How Britain Tried To Rig the Trial of a Genocide Opponent – and Lost

The jury took just two hours. Tony Greenstein – Jewish socialist, anti-Zionist – had faced fourteen years under the Terrorism Act for three social media posts and a blog article opposing Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The Crown called it “inviting support for Hamas.” The jury called it something else.

Section 12 of the Terrorism Act makes it an offense to invite support for a proscribed organization. Greenstein’s reference to a “Gaza ghetto uprising”, it argued, amounted to support for Hamas. Three social media posts and a blog article. The bill the State was demanding for those words – fourteen years.

Judge Sarah Plaschkes repeatedly objected when Greenstein brought the wider historical-political context of Palestine/Israel into the courtroom – warning him against treating the proceedings as a political forum. When the closing speech came, Greenstein was by now so concerned about what might happen to his barrister that he decided to address the jury himself (no doubt considering what had happened to Barrister Rajiv Menon KC – more of whom later). For thirty minutes he examined the prosecution case and the context in which his posts had been written. The jury wasn’t asked to lay aside the offending words; instead, he guided the jurors in an articulate reading (see his address to the jury, here) in which the world in which they’d been written was made clear (full trial coverage at the Canary, here).

But this court was rigged and thus determined to keep all context out of the courtroom. Nevertheless, despite Judge Plaschkes’ hostile interruptions, Greenstein’s speech laid bare the realities the prosecution had no interest in facing: his opposition to Hamas evident in dozens of articles he’d penned and published on his platform over the years; and Israel’s genocide in Gaza after October 2023. He spelled out the difference between supporting Hamas and defending the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli oppression, and the obvious point that the posts in contention clearly did not express support for Hamas.

Greenstein recounted to the jury how his grandparents fled Poland before the War, and most of those left behind perished in Treblinka. To him, Greenstein told the jury, the Holocaust was not history, but inheritance. He invoked the story of the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto uprising as a parallel of Gaza: young Jewish men and women rising up against the SS with smuggled pistols against tanks, knowing it was hopeless yet choosing resistance anyway. October 7th was Gaza’s uprising. The judge objected.

Once Greenstein had finished speaking (to a round of applause from the public gallery), Judge Plaschkes addressed the court to say that she had considered referring Greenstein for contempt of court. She then dismissed his address as a “rambling speech delivered by an old man”. An extraordinary turn of phrase in a criminal trial in which Greenstein was about to find out whether he was to be sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper added Palestine Action to the UK’s list of proscribed organizations in July 2025, under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. But proscription criminalizes more than membership. Up to fourteen years in prison can follow under section 12, which makes it an offence to “invite support for a proscribed organization” or to “express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organization…” That was the provision the Crown used to prosecute Tony Greenstein, and it applies right now to public expressions of support for Palestine Action. Serious concerns over freedom of expression and peaceful assembly were raised by a group of five UN Special Rapporteurs over proscribing a group for property destruction.

On 6 August 2024 activists from Palestine Action staged a break-in at Elbit Systems, in Filton, near Bristol. It’s an Israeli defense company with British operations supplying equipment to the IDF. They entered facilities, sabotaged machinery and hindered production they regarded as part of Israel’s war-making infrastructure. During the parliamentary debate on the proscription order, it was argued that Palestine Action had targeted only industrial facilities, and not civilians. The government went ahead with proscription anyway.

Rajiv Menon KC represented one of the six defendants in the February 2026 Filton Trial. All six were acquitted of aggravated burglary but the jury failed to agree on criminal damage. At the May retrial, four were convicted. Menon’s closing speech was a masterclass and invoked the 1670 Bushell case – a landmark ruling on jury independence from judicial interference, arguing that the judge could not direct a conviction. Judge Jeremy Johnson then referred Menon for contempt, a referral the Court of Appeal overturned on procedural grounds in May before Johnson referred to it correctly in June.

The Filton defendants were acquitted of the most serious charge – the barrister who defended them is now facing contempt proceedings for the way he did it.

So what lies behind all this courtroom drama is a routine machinery. Proscription – the government’s designation of an organization as terrorist – takes effect by order of the Home Secretary. It falls to the barrister to gauge how far a closing speech can go before crossing the line into contempt, while the judge cautions against political argument. Indeed, the evidence shows that judges are increasingly directing what juries are allowed to hear before threatening barristers with contempt. To an outside observer there is little sign of a conflict – yet behind these routine procedures is something damning: what the jury doesn’t get to hear – could mean years in prison.

And, of course, the elephant in the room is that Britain is directly implicated in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. In September 2024, as the government suspended thirty arms export licenses to Israel, Foreign Secretary David Lammy told Parliament that “there exists a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law”. Thirty licenses suspended out of three hundred and fifty. Britain would also continue to supply F-35 components through the global parts pool serving Israel, with the government arguing that withdrawal would undermine allied security. British weapons armed a state committing a genocide despite their supposed withdrawal.

The state that arms Israel prosecutes those who oppose it.

The Crown had brought three posts, a blog article and an accusation of terrorism before the jury. But Greenstein stood on that essential context – despite the hostile judge’s interjections. And a mere two hours after retiring – the jurors returned with a unanimous verdict of not guilty.

Keep reading

“Hurry Up And Die”: Michigan Democrat Joins Other Radicals In Scrubbing Past Social Media Statements

A certain pattern is emerging on the far left. Political figures spend years currying the favor of other extremists with outrageous commentary, proudly proclaiming their commitment to eliminating the Senate, opening the border, and other measures. Then, they delete all of the comments and declare themselves mainstream. The idea is to run in the center but govern from the far left, the so-called Spanberger strategy. The latest example is William Lawrence, who is running for Michigan’s 7th Congressional District. However, Lawrence’s prior self reveals just how radical this movement could prove.

Like many professors, pundits, and politicians on the left, Lawrence has called for sweeping changes in our constitutional system. Lawrence reportedly has demanded a “fundamental overhaul” of the Constitution while calling for the elimination of the Senate, police, prisons, and borders.

He has even denounced the nuclear family as an “isolating, individualistic, violent way of organizing society.”

Notably, he is the latest radical to show that the “Big Tent” party has little room for moderates. While establishment figures like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries seek to use this mob, radicals have made clear that they will be next. Darializa Avila Chevalier is the latest Democratic Socialist to mock the establishment’s pitch of a Big Tent party: “A big tent doesn’t pay your rent, lower your grocery bill, or take on the corporations bleeding our country dry. Democratic socialism does.”

In Lawrence’s case, he even put this feelings to music, writing a song a few years ago that calls for the death of moderate former Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, declaring, “Our generation says f**k you for everything…Hurry up and die so that we can get started.”

He has also denounced capitalism and the very concept of the nation-state.

Lawrence was previously arrested for resisting police officers while protesting a pipeline.

As discussed earlier, candidates like James Talarico in Texas have scrubbed their social media accounts or dismissed their earlier radical claims, including attacks on capitalism. Supporters view these candidates as already proving their bona fides and understanding that they are just sanitizing their records for voters who want the illusion of a moderate. Accordingly, many applaud figures such as Socialist Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, dismissing her own extremist statements just a few years ago as “Woke 1.” like some distant childhood stage.

These radical figures are learning that their views are distinctly unpopular with American voters so they are perfecting stealth socialist candidates who can run a type of Spanberger campaign while later pursuing a socialist agenda.

Lawrence’s past positions show little nuance and closely track the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America. Destroying the constitutional system, rejecting the nation-state, eliminating prisons, and other radical positions propelled these candidates through the primaries. The effort to now scrub the records shows the utter contempt that many have for average voters.

Lawrence shows the delusion of establishment figures such as Gavin Newsom that they can use a mob to gain power without being eventually devoured by it. In my book Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the French Revolution and its decline into what the Framers called a mobocracy. What became known as “The Terror” was started not by the working class, but by educated lawyers, journalists, and even aristocrats as part of the Jacobin movement.

These are hardcore revolutionaries with an agenda that would destroy the world’s oldest and most successful democratic system in history. Party leaders facilitate them because they can only think about the next election, not the next generation. Lawrence is a cautionary tale that Benjamin Franklin remains correct, this is our Republic but only if we can keep it.

Keep reading

Man charged with burning down historic New Brunswick church as social media posts raise new questions

Tonight on The Ezra Levant Show: a historic New Brunswick church is burned to the ground, and a local parishioner is charged with arson. On his Facebook page, he celebrates a friend jailed for fighting a pipeline. Then, in another video of the burning church, a voice calls out that friend’s name and says, “Your wish has come true.”

Saint-Simon is a small Acadian fishing village on New Brunswick’s north shore. Until August 24 it had a 109-year-old church, built by the great-grandparents of people who still live there. The largest wooden church left in the province.

The alarm sounded around 3:30 a.m. Four fire departments responded. It was too late. The building was wood and it was gone in two hours. Only the chimney stands. The fire marshal says arson.

Claudette is co-president of the parish council. She cried when the steeple came down. Standing in the ashes, she asked why.

“He took away our church, that person. Why? Especially since he was a parishioner of our parish.”

The RCMP moved fast. Within hours they charged Gilles Mallet, 68, a local man and a parishioner of the church he is accused of burning. His bail hearing in Bathurst on Friday, Aug. 28 did not finish. It resumes Monday, Sept. 7.

The charge is unproven. Mallet has not entered a plea. A publication ban covers the bail hearing, so Rebel News cannot report what was said in that courtroom.

Everyone in Saint-Simon offered the same explanation. One troubled man, nothing bigger. That may be right. But Mallet’s Facebook page is public, and it shows a man who spent years inside a political movement two provinces away.

His profile picture shows him beside a war canoe named Chief Dan George, on a trailer marked Takaya Tours, the tourism company of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. His shirt reads “Warrior Up! Ta’ah said.” Ta’ah is Amy George, Chief Dan George’s daughter, who coined the phrase in 2012 against the Kinder Morgan pipeline. It became the rallying cry of the B.C. anti-pipeline movement.

A reader who knew Mallet from an Indigenous community near Lillooet, B.C., where Mallet lived for years, pointed Rebel News to the page. He said he had left that community himself over what was being said there about Christians and the Church. Mallet stayed.

On March 1, 2025, Mallet posted: “In honour of my friend Stacy Gallagher who’s in jail because of his fights against the pipeline.”

Gallagher is a B.C. pipeline protester with a criminal record. On March 2, 2021, Justice Shelley Fitzpatrick sentenced him to 90 days for criminal contempt after he defied an injunction at Trans Mountain’s Burnaby terminal. He was released on bail pending appeal the next day. Rebel News cannot confirm he was in custody in 2025. That is Mallet’s description.

There is a video on Mallet’s timeline of the church burning, filmed from the road as the fire trucks arrive. Mallet did not post it. An acquaintance uploaded it around Aug. 30, while Mallet was in custody. A man behind the camera says: “Stacey Gallagher, your wish has come true.”

Keep reading

	Bigus Macus on DOJ Seizes Over $560,000 in Cr…
	Study: Homeschool Ki… on Study: Homeschool Kids Outperf…
	HP McLovincraft on New design!
	Bigus Macus on New design!
	freemattpodcast on REALLY? Gavin Newsom Claims He…

Federal agents have arrested Los Angeles-based leftist podcaster Benjamin Azariah Southworth at his Westlake home Thursday on a grand jury indictment charging him with threatening to kill President Donald Trump, cyberstalking, and making harassing interstate telephone calls.